CLAT Common Law Admission Test Solved Paper 2011 – English, Aptitude Part 18

Doorsteptutor material for CTET/Paper-1 is prepared by world's top subject experts: get questions, notes, tests, video lectures and more- for all subjects of CTET/Paper-1.

Assume that in the above fact scenario, Khaleeda no longer wants the carpet. She removes the elaborately carved door to the house after the sale has been concluded and claims that Gurpreet has no claim to the door. The door in question was part of Khaleeda’s ancestral home in Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu for more than 150 year before she had it fitted as the entrance to her Baghmara house.

162. As a judge you would decide in favour of

(a) Khaleeda because while the rest of the building belongs to Khaleeda exclusively, the door is ancestral property and therefore the decision to sell it cannot be Khaleeda’s alone

(b) Gurpreet because the door is an integral part of the building as it is attached to it

(c) Khaleeda because the door can be removed from the building and is therefore not attached to it

(d) Gurpreet because the contract is explicitly for the whole house and since the door is part of house, it cannot be removed after the sale

Ans: (b)

163. Amongst the following options, the most relevant consideration while deciding a case based on the above two principles would be

(a) Whether the moveable thing was included in the sale agreement

(b) Whether the moveable thing was merely placed on the land or building

(c) Whether the moveable thing had become an inseparable part of the land or building

(d) Whether the moveable thing could be removed

Ans: (b)

164. Rule C If a moveable thing is placed on land with the intention that it should become an integral part of the land or any structure on the land it becomes a fixture.

Applying Rules, A and C, to the fact situations in Questions 161 and 162, as a judge you would decide in favour of

(a) Khaleeda in both situations

(b) Gurpreet only in 161

(c) Khaleeda only in 161

(d) Gurpreet in both situations

Ans: (c)

Problem 3 (Q. Nos. 165 to 169) Rule

A. An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of land also owns the space above and the depths below it

B. Rights above the land extend only to the point they are essential to any use or enjoyment of land

C. An owner cannot claim infringement of her property right if the space above his or her land is put to reasonable use by someone else at a height at which the owner would have no reasonable use of it and it does not affect the reasonable enjoyment of his or her land

Ramesh’s case Ramesh owns an acre of land on the outskirts of Sullurpeta, Andhra Pradesh. The Government of India launches its satellites into space frequently from Sriharikota, near Sullurpeta. The Government of India does not deny that once the satellite launch has travelled the distance of 7000 km it passes over Ramesh’s property. Ramesh files a case claiming that the Government of India has violated his property rights by routing its satellite over his property, albeit 7000 km directly above it.

165. Applying only Rule A to Ramesh’s case, as a judge you would decide

(a) In favour of the Government of India because the transgression was at a height at which Ramesh could not have any use for

(b) That ownership of land does not mean that the owner’s right extends infinitely into space above the land

(c) In favour of Ramesh because he has the right to infinite space above the land, he owns

(d) In favour of the Government of India because it would lead to the absurd result that Ramesh and most other property owners would have a claim against airline companies and other countries of the world whose satellites orbit the earth

Ans: (c)

Shazia’s case Shazia owns a single storeyed house in Ahmedabad which has been in her family for more than 75 yr. The foundation of the house cannot support another floor and Shazia has no intention of demolishing her family home to construct a bigger building.

Javed and Sandeep are business partners and own three storey houses on either side of Shazia’s house. Javed and Sandeep are also Ahmedabad’s main distributors for a major soft drinks company. They have erected a huge hoarding advertising their products, with the ends supported on their roofs but the hoarding also passes over Shazia’s house at 70 feet and casts a permanent shadow on her terrace. Shazia decides to hoist a huge Indian flag, going up to 75 feet, on her roof. She files a case, asking the court to order Javed and Sandeep to remove the hoarding for all these reasons.

166. Applying only Rule B to Shazia’s case, you would decide in favour of

(a) Javed and Sandeep because Shazia can easily hoist a flag below 70 feet

(b) Shazia because she has the right to put her land to any use and the court cannot go into her intentions for hoisting a flag at 75 feet

(c) Shazia because she has the absolute right to the space above her land

(d) Javed and Sandeep because hoisting a flag 75 feet above one’s roof is not essential to the use and enjoyment of the land

Ans: (b)

167. Applying only Rules A and B to Shazia’s case, you would decide

(a) in favour of Shazia only under Rule A

(b) in favour of Shazia under Rule A as well as B

(c) against Shazia under Rule B

(d) against Shazia under Rule A as well as B

Ans: (b)

168. Applying only Rule B and C to Ramesh’s case, you would decide

(a) in favour of Ramesh only under Rule B

(b) in favour of Ramesh under Rule B as well as C

(c) against Ramesh under Rule C

(d) against Ramesh under Rule B as well as C

Ans: (d)

169. Applying Rule C to Shazia’s case, you would decide

(a) in her favour because hoisting a 75 feet high flag is reasonable

(b) against her because hoisting a 75 feet high flag is not reasonable

(c) against her because the hoarding is a reasonable use of the space above her land

(d) in her favour because the permanent shadow cast by the hoarding affects the reasonable enjoyment of her land

Ans: (d)